Our democratic rules are no longer limited to voting for a candidate and letting him rule without control. We have a new tool to remove him from office. For the first time, citizens in Mexico have the right to vote to decide whether to maintain the head of the Federal Executive Power. It is a right, it is not a privilege, it is not a favor, it is not a courtesy.
Many analysts confuse between an election and a recall. Let me use an example from human resources (and let’s avoid misjudgments). One thing is the processes of recruitment, selection and hiring of personnel; and another thing, very different, are the personnel evaluation processes, such as their dismissal. Similarly, it is idle to compare the results of an election vote with the referendum to revoke his mandate.
Let’s not get confused, in a popular election process, a political campaign is carried out (among different parties and candidates), where a budget is exercised by each one of them and the vote is called to choose between different options, there is competition, they make debates, spread platforms; while in a mandate revocation there is no formal competition between candidates, it is only assessed whether a public servant (who was already popularly elected) should continue or not in office. An instrument is to compete and that a candidate arrives at the position; while the other is to assess whether it continues or not.
The new tool represents a huge change, because the citizens who elected a candidate are empowered. Be careful, it is an instrument for the voters, not for the political parties, interest groups or authorities. Now, the voters who choose a candidate, we will be able to assess their work in office, and if we consider it necessary, revoke their mandate. It is not a minor thing. The duration of a popularly elected position is no longer a guarantee for the ruler, now the people who elected him can revoke his mandate and prevent that period from ending.
It is a mechanism of participatory democracy that forces the public power to submit to the decisions of the citizens. A government is elected, but the people retain the right to revoke his mandate, to nullify the appointment that had been granted to him and remove him from the government. Nothing that “it has been as it has been”. Nothing that once elected, no one can remove him. We have already left behind that model of fixed and immovable appointment (which, by the way, did not work), for an appointment subject to the assessment of its voters.
Let us remember that rights not only serve to build spheres of protection for citizens, they also serve to legitimately protest against governments that do not respect, protect, or guarantee them. The rights also serve to protest against their economic and social policies. That is why it is so important that we have mechanisms to make our rights effective.
And the governors? Today we have the right to revoke the mandate of the President of the Republic, but this figure needs to be legislated in local constitutions. That the phony, liars, liars, corrupt, incapable, inept, inefficient, ineffective, frivolous or indifferent governors leave before the end of their term. If we choose them, we must reserve the right to remove them, in case they are no longer useful.
Let’s put aside the political dispute (which by its nature is contingent), and let’s celebrate the institutionalization of an important right for our democracy. Let’s fight for it to be proposed and approved in all local governments. This power of decision must remain on the side of the citizens. Imagine how many local governments of terror and corruption we could avoid.
And the senators? We must promote the revocation of the mandate for the figure of the senators. They last in his position for 6 years and many of them forget to whom they owe the position. Their voters and voters must have the right to revoke their mandate, especially when they do not represent their interests, or those of their state, or the nation. Let’s stop considering their positions and assignments as untouchable. They are charges that are owed to their electorates and electors; and they must retain the right to revoke their mandate.
And what do we do with legislators who change parties? Even more pressing is the need to institute the revocation of mandate for those legislators (who hold a senator or deputy), who were elected with the colors, acronyms and platform of a political party and once they came to office, they changed to another, (without any modesty), and without consulting the base of voters who gave him the electoral victory and allowed him access to that political position.
Citizens and citizens must have the possibility of revoking the mandate of legislators who change parties. They have an obligation to consult their constituents. May they not forget who chose them, to whom they owe their debt and why they were chosen. That they no longer hold a position or political power that was granted to them. We must give the democratic tools to the voters so that they can punish the legislators who turned their backs on them, as well as those who openly betrayed them and who, cynically, continue to hold office.
In general, all elected positions must be subject to the possibility of revocation of mandate. The coordination of the intermediate elections and the revocation exercises are elements that would facilitate their realization. An important lesson from this democratic exercise is that we must guarantee the availability and accessibility of everyone to the revocation of the mandate. That is to say, that the material and physical conditions exist so that all people can exercise it without discrimination and regardless of where they are. The disagreements between the INE and the government cannot happen again. It is a constitutional and legal mandate, which is not subject to conditions, or suspensions, by the authorities that are obliged to guarantee it.
#Lets #Change #Rules #Revocation #Mandate #Governors #Legislators
Leave a Reply